There are no plans to do this anytime in the near future. I kind of like the idea, but there is the argument of why do again what has already been done.
The maps for CWBR and TC2M have not been available using the SOW engine, graphics or MP. It is not an issue of doing "again what has already been done" as SOW, IMO is a much different and improved experience.
I must admit I am waiting for this as well. I have been watching the evolution of SoW and been planning to buy and get in for quite a while now. Now that NSD teamed up with Matrix, which I consider the best, and most customer-friendly publisher out there today, I am seriously considering making myself a Christmas gift with Gettysburg, Antietam and perhaps, that is ideally, also Chancellorsville.
So far a couple of monster games (WitP AE, WitE for those active over at Matrix) and major, long-term modding projects (ARMA2 high and low level AI programming for a small but smartly dynamic scenario engine) have kept my busy for years now, but the SoW series has remained on my watchlist.
One thing that kept me being patient for buying was the initial announcement that full map modding would only be opened later -- I thought "later" meant something like "just a year or two", though. After all I think modding is just as important as playing to me, but if you guys plan on lots more addons before that, I will better buy in sooner.
Another thing I'd like to know about are the changes to the scripting language since the TC2M days, ideally get a look at the modding manual for SoW if there is one.
Besides modding weapons to lower casualty rates, or arty effectiveness, or the losses upon routing (I hated that routed units often "dispersed" entirely, so I spent a lot of time playing around with parameters to lower routing in general by earlier retreats, and get rallying rates up), I liked scenario scripting. The latter probably because I liked the full-battle scenarios more so than the smaller ones, though AI needed a hand, ideally by dynamic scripting of possible courses and reactions.
Back at TC2M days I tried re-scripting the "Gettysburg in 7 hours" scenario by creating "if then else" type of trees, for example to allow Hancock to occupy Cemetery Ridge if the usual happens, or stop him short and form to the south if the Rebs overran it and are present in too great strength. I used invisible VP triggers that were only there for a few seconds, sort of "checking" troop numbers at locations and deleting specific eventhandlers, i.e. leaving only the events to be triggered to make sense (example: a trigger checking on the morning of July 2nd if on Cemetery Hill, within some radius, at least 4000 blue were present and then deleting reinforcements handlers if so, or starting a reinforcement handler that send Crawford or even Sykes up to bolster the I. or XI.; the reinforcement handler in turn deleted the corresponding one that would have been triggered if it were held in sufficient strength instead and the VP triggered -- I hope you get the idea).
That I did even for all divisions, corps (and both sides, but separately) for the full three days, which you can imagine was a mess. Plus I tried to set up triggers so that AI could handle for example a large flank attack via the area south of Round top and redeploy Sykes there, or Sedgewick if Sykes meanwhile had been send as reinforcement either to Sickles or the Culps Hill by another handler etc.
Unfortunately it often failed to react, and -- my bad -- I never figured why until a few days ago I read someone posting here that with leaders dying, the scripting does as well. It would have been better that the scripting had been continuing just with a new entity leading the element. A better language that knows function calls, variables and some control structures like "while do, if then else", would allow to enhance scenario AI greatly, and be much better than using some 50 or 100 hidden VP triggers and a mess of eventhandlers -- not only for the task of scripting in a clearly structured fashion for such complex problems.
I saw that someone ported the 7 hours scenario to SoW, but I wonder how well AI can handle a human player, i.e. does a player have to behave rather closely to the historical course, or is AI sufficiently dynamic and capable to adapt to very different battle progress, say
- "a confed player sending half of Ewell and all of Longstreet in a flank march to the rear of the Rounds/East of Culps (was it Spranglers spring/hill? I forgot)", or
- "a situation where Howard and Reynolds were overrun and the Confeds are well entrenched across Culps and Cemetery hills with Johnson and Anderson up by morning of the 2nd". Could it react those smartly?
And finally, two more questions to the experts and devs here (maybe the wrong spot here...):
- For Chancellorsville, what maps are planned? Will there be any of the big ones DaVinci has been exploring for use? 10x10 mi^2 might be just enough to squeeze in the whole battlefield including Fredericksburg, or do I remember incorrectly? A full-battle scenario for that would perhaps be great, too, giving AI and scripting can handle 5 consecutive days (ideally without using "carry-over"). It may be way over the top, though. Yet in general I agree with others who posted that the marching and maneuvering part on large maps is crucial, I found that aspect lacking on the smaller TC2M maps as well.
- Have you put any thought into releasing the SoW series as a set, or perhaps just all except Chancellorsville once it is out? That would be a neat thing.
I am looking forward to Chancellorsville! I have never seen this battle to be truly captures by a game in its epic dimensions and with its risks.
